A decree for specific performance requires the plaintiff to deposit the entire sale consideration, and inadvertent court errors do not invalidate compliance with the decree.

ORDER :

1. The legal representatives of the first defendant/judgment debtors in O.S. No.202 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sub Court at Puducherry, are the petitioners herein.

2. The facts that provide the back drop to this revision-petition may now be bullet pointed:

● A certain property measuring 8,016 sq.ft. belonged to two persons. They entered into a sale agreement dated 28.05.1987 with one T.Selvaraj for a sale consideration of Rs.3.60 lakhs, out of which Rs.80,000/- was paid as advance. It is an undisputed fact that the said Selvaraj was in peaceful possession of the property under certain jural relationship with the owners of the property even prior to the said sale agreement dated 28.05.1987.

●To enforce the sale agreement Selvaraj preferred O.S. No.202 of 1988 before the Additional Sub Court, Puducherry. A year later the first defendant had passed away some time in 1989 and his legal representatives were came to be impleaded.

● Vide its judgment and decree dated 08.10.1991, the trial court decreed the suit but only to the extent of the half the share of the first defendant in the suit property, and directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.2.60 lakhs (where it should be Rs.2.80 lakhs) within three months.

● Selvaraj, the plaintiff in the suit, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.972 of 1991 on the file of this court challenging that part of the decree of the trial court dismissing specific enforcement of the contract for the other half share. This appeal was later withdrawn by the plaintiff on 02.03.1998. Within 10 days of the withdrawal of A.S. No.972 of 1991, the plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration.

● Subsequently the decree holder laid E.P. No.210 of 1999 for obtaining a sale deed for the half share of the first defendant. A sale deed too was executed on 03.04.2019 by the execution court. Inasmuch as the decree holder is already in possession of the property, there was no need for him to approach the court for obtaining delivery of his half share.

3. The legal representatives of the first defendant who were defending the half share of the first defendant and contested the suit, would now come out with an application in E.A. No.580 of 2004 under Section 47 CPC r/w Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. They allege in their affidavit:

a) Whereas the plaintiff/his legal representatives ought to deposit Rs.2.80 lakhs, they have chosen to deposit only Rs.2.60 lakhs. The differential sum is not deposited till date.

b) Secondly, the trial court has directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within three months from the date of its decree on 08.10.1991, the plaintiff had deposited it only on 12.03.1998, after the withdrawal of A.S.972 of 1991 on 02.03.1998. Hence the plaintiff/his legal representatives have lost all their right to execute the decree.

c) This allegations is followed with a set of reliefs which inter alia include:

i. To dismiss E.P.210 of 1999.

ii. To declare that the decree dated 08.10.1991 is inexecutable.

iii. Rescind the contract dated 28.05.1987 and to direct redeliver possession of the northern half of the suit property with mesne profits at Rs.3,900/-p.m..

4. In the counter filed by the legal representatives of decree-holder it is alleged:

a) When the decree-holder filed A.S.972 of 1991 before this Court, he also moved C.M.P.17184 of 1991 seeking leave of the Court to depoist Rs.1.0 lakh (since the suit was decreed only for one-half of the suit property) and in the alternative to stay the operation of the decree. On 20.12.1991, this Court had passed an order where it declined to grant leave to deposit Rs.1.0 lakh, since the quantum of amount required to be deposited could not be ascertained, but instead chose to stay the operation of the decree of the trial court till the disposal of the appeal. This order was not challenged by the petitioners, nor have they sought any modification.

b) A.S.972 of 1991 pending before this court was withdrawn on 02.03.